Feddiman v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1988
• Citation: 558 A.2d 278
• Parties: Walter FEDDIMAN, Defendant below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee. . Submitted:
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 278

558 A.2d 278

Walter FEDDIMAN, Defendant below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: Nov. 9, 1988.

Decided: Feb. 22, 1989.

Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, Cr.A. Nos. S87-09-0028 thru 0037 and S88-10-8009 and 8010. Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.

Karl Haller, Esquire, (argued) and Howard W. Hudson, Jr., Esquire, Haller and Hudson, of Georgetown, Delaware, on behalf of appellant.

M. Jane Brady, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, of Georgetown, Delaware, on behalf of appellee.

Before Christie, Chief Justice, Walsh and Holland, Justices.

Holland, J.

The defendant-appellant, Walter Thomas Feddiman ("Feddiman"), was tried before a jury in the Superior Court, in and for Sussex County, on April 13 and 14, 1988. The charges against Feddiman were set forth in a twelve-count indictment. Feddiman was convicted of Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree *fn1; Assault in the Third Degree, Kidnapping in the First Degree, Reckless Endangering in the First Degree *fn2, and eight counts of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree. Feddiman received nine life sentences, one for each conviction of Unlawful Sexual Intercourse in the First Degree, and one life sentence for the conviction of Kidnapping in the First Degree. He was also sentenced to be imprisoned for periods of ten years for Reckless Endangering in the First Degree, one year for Assault in the Third Degree, and one year for Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree. All of the sentences were to be served by Feddiman consecutively.

Feddiman was convicted as a result of actions which occurred when he knocked the victim off of her bicycle and took her away in his automobile to two separate locations. During the course of transporting the victim, and at each location, Feddiman forced the victim to engage in various acts of sexual intercourse. In this appeal, Feddiman challenges his convictions on several grounds. He contends that: 1) there was error in the jury selection process because the voir dire questions did not sufficiently address the issue of racial prejudice; 2) the State allegedly used peremptory challenges improperly to eliminate black people from the jury; 3) the Superior Court erred when it declined to grant Feddiman's motion to dismiss various counts of unlawful sexual intercourse on the grounds of multiplicity; 4) the Superior Court erred in allowing the State to distribute twelve copies of a transcript of his tape-recorded statement to the jury, without admitting the transcript into evidence; and 5) the Superior Court erred in not giving an instruction to the jury, as requested by his defense counsel, which distinguished a "separate" act of unlawful sexual intercourse from a "continuing" act of unlawful sexual intercourse.

We find no merit in any of the issues presented by Feddiman. Therefore, all of the judgments of the Superior Court, resulting in Feddiman's convictions, are affirmed.

Facts

The State's case against Feddiman was presented primarily through the testimony of the victim, who recounted the events which transpired between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on the morning of August 23, 1987. At approximately 2:15 a.m., the victim was riding her bicycle west on Route 54 in Fenwick Island, Sussex County, Delaware. Feddiman was traveling on Route 54 in his car when he swerved his vehicle and struck the victim's bicycle twice, knocking her from the bicycle and into a water-filled ditch. *fn3 Feddiman got out of his car wearing only a hat, shoes, socks and glasses. He struck the victim in the face several times while she was in the ditch. *fn4 He told the victim that if she did not get into his car, he would kill her. The victim got into the car. *fn5

In the car, Feddiman ordered the victim to remove her clothes and forced her to engage in oral sexual intercourse (fellatio) *fn6 while he was driving the vehicle. *fn7 Feddiman stopped the car at a sandy beach area near the water. While still in the car, Feddiman forced the victim to engage in vaginal sexual intercourse. *fn8 He then forced her to engage in fellatio again. *fn9 While he was forcing her to commit fellatio, the victim threw up on Feddiman.

Feddiman pushed the victim out of the car and took her toward the water. He forced the victim to her knees on the sand near the water and demanded that she commit fellatio. *fn10 When the victim threw up on Feddiman again, he shoved her into the water. He pushed her head under the water a number of times. *fn11 The victim thought that Feddiman was going to drown her. The victim recalled gasping for breath when Feddiman pulled her out of the water by the hair. Feddiman took the victim back to the car. After she was inside of the car, he again forced her to engage in vaginal sexual intercourse. *fn12

Feddiman then left the beach area in his car, with the victim, and drove for approximately fifteen minutes. Feddiman stopped the car in an overgrown area that had once been a "dump" site. In the car, Feddiman forced the victim, who was on her knees, to engage in vaginal sexual intercourse from the rear. *fn13 Feddiman then made the victim walk from the car to the edge of a pit. Feddiman then took the victim back to the car. Once again, he forced her to commit fellatio. *fn14 Feddiman then removed the victim from the car and again forced her to engage in vaginal sexual intercourse from the rear. *fn15 Thereafter, Feddiman ordered the victim to put her clothes back on.

The victim eventually persuaded Feddiman to take her back to Route 54 and to release her. The victim walked home, arriving at approximately 8:00 a.m. on August 23, 1987. She locked herself in her home and spent the day crying. When it became dark, she became anxious and left her home to find her boy friend.

The victim's boyfriend took her to a security guard and told him what had happened. The security guard called the police. The victim provided the police with information regarding her assailant's description, his motor vehicle, and a possible place of employment. Based upon that information, the police assembled a photographic lineup from which the victim identified Feddiman.

Feddiman was apprehended and gave a statement to the police which was tape-recorded. In the tape-recorded statement, Feddiman admitted that he was the individual that had been with the victim on the date of the offense. In the tape-recorded statement, Feddiman told the police that he was driving has car when he passed the victim, who was riding her bicycle. He stated that he then went down the road and took off his clothes. He returned and "bumped" the victim off of her bicycle with his car. He stated he hit her with his hand "about once," after she had fallen into a ditch beside the road.

In the tape-recorded statement, Feddiman also told the police that he took the victim to Sandy Cove (the beach area) and ordered her to go into the water. He stated that he told the victim "he might drown her," if she didn't do what he said. He also stated he told her to "do this and do that." He said he then took her to a wooded place near Frankford (the dump site), where he "told her to do these things again." He then told her to put her clothes on and took her back to the place where he had picked her up. When asked by the police officer to say what things he made her do, he stated "I can't describe that, I'm sorry I done it, I can't."

Feddiman testified in his own defense at trial. Feddiman denied giving the police the tape-recorded statement that had been introduced into evidence and played for the jury. He testified that it was not his voice on the tape. In support of this contention, Feddiman was permitted to play a tape recording on which he had duplicated some of the language of the initial statement in his "own" voice.

Feddiman's testimony at trial was materially different from the tape-recorded statement. He denied ever striking the victim or running her bicycle into the ditch. He stated that he had stopped on the side of the road because his car had made an unusual noise. Feddiman testified that the victim, whom he claimed to recognize from work, approached him on a bicycle. According to Feddiman, she stated that she had "never been with a black guy before" and essentially solicited sex from him.

According to Feddiman's testimony, the victim voluntarily left the roadside with him in his vehicle. Feddiman testified that they drove to a beach area known as Sandy Cove and that while inside the car, the victim wanted to commit fellatio and that he reluctantly agreed. Afterwards, according to Feddiman, they walked on the beach. Feddiman testified that the victim then went swimming. Thereafter, Feddiman stated, they again walked along the beach, "sat around," talked and drank beer over the next several hours.

After several hours, Feddiman testified that the victim wanted to go driving. He stated that they went to a dump site in the Frankford area, near his home. Feddiman testified that after arriving in this area, he and the victim again "sat around and talked." Thereafter, according to Feddiman, an act of consensual vaginal intercourse occurred at this location. Feddiman testified that ultimately he took the victim back to the location where he had picked her up.

Jury Voir Dire/Racial Prejudice

Feddiman contends that there was error in the jury selection process because the voir dire questions did not sufficiently address the issue of racial prejudice. Feddiman's defense counsel submitted written requests for the trial judge to ask two voir dire questions concerning possible racial prejudice. The first question submitted by defense counsel was:

The victim in this case is a white person. The defendant is black. Do you have any prejudice, however slight, against black people which would [a]ffect you in any[ ]way in deciding this case in regarding their sexual proclivities?

This...